It started out well...

Rating: Null/10 (16 October 2004)

I don't know exactly what stops me from enjoying 28 Days Later, but it just doesn't strike me as being nearly as good as others have made out. Maybe it is the inordinately slow pace. I really don't know. I think part of the problem is that the characters carry about the same level of importance to the average viewer as a badly-articulated marionette. In any case, 28 Days Later could really have been titled 28 Days Long, because it certainly takes its sweet time to get anywhere.
The introductory sequence in the research lab was a nice touch, and it started the film off on a great note. We've grown all too used to film scenarios in which some kind of army biological weapon brings about the destruction of the world. 28 Days Later takes the heroic step of placing the blame where it really belongs, in the hands of ignorant activists who care nothing for the consequences of their actions, so long as the world is brought into line with their backwards, retrofit philosophy. The real problem begins after the outbreak, when we're following our rather scruffy hero around the empty city.
I don't think it was such a good idea to use music over the top of most every shot, for one thing. Films like C'era una volta il West managed to effectively use near silence in order to induce strong feelings, but it appears that today's directors just don't understand the value of a mood or how effective silence can be when it comes to inducing it. Another significant problem lies in the characters. We see them do terrible, even unforgivable things, but very little in the way of explanation is given. The audio commentary refers to keeping the exposition short and relying on the audience to fill in the gaps. The problem here is that the director and writer do too much of this. They also rely upon the viewer to find excitement or interest where there are none.
It was a bold move to not have any Hollywood A-list stars in the film at all, although this was probably more because of a small budget rather than any artistic concern. Cillian Murphy is an excellent protagonist, combining a certain naïvete with a decisiveness you don't normally expect after seeing the character's other qualities. He is a more believable version of the characters that populate films like Resident Evil, to put it bluntly. Indeed, it is caring what happens to this guy next that keeps the audience watching.
It is when we meet the soldiers that things start going downhill. Up to this point, regardless of what one might think of the central characters, they all had redeeming qualities that made them seem like human beings rather than pieces in a game of plot chess. The soldiers, on the other hand, have no such qualities. They are as interesting as a bag of hammers, and generally about as intelligent.
You will note that I haven't said anything about the fast-moving zombies. I think the writer deserves kudos for getting around that problem by making the story about an outbreak with traceable biological causes, as opposed to the usual mysterious causes for zombie outbreaks. The normally incongruous moments when the zombies are running faster than the living are deftly explained away by this setup, something that would have made the Dawn Of The Dead remake work substantially better if they'd even tried it.
All in all, I gave 28 Days Later a six out of ten. It has enough intriguing concepts or foundation to keep the viewer interested for the first viewing, but it doesn't have the legs to keep up a lasting viewing experience. The writer and director sum it up brilliantly when they talk about how they set up a whole heap of rules for their story, then ignored them at will.